BHUVAN LAL LILHARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 / 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2018 in S.T. No. 08/2015 passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, whereby the learned ASJ has framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B , 409 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) According to the case, in compliance of direction given by learned JMFC, Balaghat on the complaint under Section 156(3) CrP.C filed by one Kamlesh Mahobiya, the police has registered the case against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. After completing investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet before the concerning Court and vide judgment dated 25.07.2012 except the petitioner, other co-accused persons have been convicted by the trial Court. Now after taking sanction, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the police against the petitioner and the trial Court has framed the charges which are under challenged in this petition. Before the rival contentions of the parties are taken up for consideration, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of facts. It appears from the case that the petitioner was the then In-charge CEO of Municipal Council Lanji and it is alleged by the complainant that there is weekly market in control of Municipal Council Lanji and in auction proceeding in respect of animal market, cycle stand etc. for the year 2011-12, an advertisement was issued and according to it successful bidder has to pay 7.5% stamp fees for the agreement. It is said that on 07.03.2011, an auction proceeding took place in which co-accused Raja Mankar and Sitaram Bahe were the successful bidder for getting the contract of weekly animal market at rupees 19,45,000/- and contract of cycle stand at rupees 6,33,000/-, respectively. As per the terms and conditions of contract, the successful bidder has to pay stamp duty of 7.5% while executing the agreement but the co-accused did not deposit the said stamp duty and got the agreement executed in stamp paper of rupees 100/- by preparing forged papers and in this way the government incurred loss.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below erred in framing the charges against the petitioner whereas no case is made out against him even after accepting the whole prosecution case as it is. He further submits that the Court below failed to see that the petitioner has not committed any offence. On 09.03.2011, he issued notice to the successful bidder to comply the condition of the auction and tender by paying necessary stamp duty before 31.03.2011 but the bidder did not comply the condition then again on 17.03.2011 and 23.03.2011, reminders were issued by the petitioner for the same purpose. He further submits that on 25.03.2011, President, Vice President of Municipal Council Lanji, representative of MP's and MLA and counselor jointly were directed to execute the agreement on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- and also directed to call a meeting of counselors. In this regard, on 08.04.2011, a meeting of counselors of Municipal Counsil Lanji was called and it was decided to execute an agreement on 100/- rupees stamp, accordingly the resolution was passed. The petitioner has also informed the Collector Balaghat about the said resolution but no order was given by the authority, hence, the petitioner was under obligation to act according to the direction of the Municipal Council as per the spirit of Section 92 of M.P. Municipalities Act. He further argued that the petitioner has not committed any conspiracy with the co-accused because he raised objection during the resolution was passed. He never fabricated any documents because the alleged document are not forged. The petitioner neither gained any benefit nor cheated anyone, per-contra, he did all the work according to direction of Municipal Council. He also argued that the complainant has no locus standi to file complaint and without prior sanction from the competent authority, application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is not maintainable. Thus, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is contrary to law. With the aforesaid, he prays to allow this revision petition.